Friday, May 1, 2009
The Greenest of them All
I'm happy to see the new National Resources Defense Council "Growing Green" awards, recognizing thought leaders, food producers and business leaders. Take a look.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Op Ed on Recycling
I've been remiss in my postings. On a positive note, I've been doing plenty of research for a grad school speech and paper on the USDA Organic Regulations and their effect on small family farmers. On the flip side, my availability to post anything is, well, zilch!
But here is the OPED I wrote for class on recycling. Enjoy!
Calling all Fiscal Conservatives: Time to Start Recycling
Do you believe in fiscal responsibility? Does your conservatism extend beyond “do more with less” and include a philosophy to “maximize resources?” If this is the case, I implore you to recycle.
Recycling isn't just for environmentalists. Anyone who cares about their fiscal duty to their family, community and economy needs to board the recycling bandwagon. Take these facts: Recycling one aluminum can saves enough energy to run a TV for three hours -- or the equivalent of a half a gallon of gasoline. The energy saved from recycling one glass bottle can run a 100-watt light bulb for four hours and it causes 20% less air pollution and 50% less water pollution than when a new bottle is made from raw materials.
Almost all Twin City neighborhoods have curbside recycling as a city service. Week after week, your bottles, cans, newspapers, cardboard, plastics and mixed paper will disappear from the curb and begin life anew. On average, it costs $30 per ton to recycle trash, $50 to send it to the landfill, and $65 to $75 to incinerate it, so recycling isn’t only easy, it is cost-effective and fiscally responsible.
While I receive a personal sense of satisfaction knowing some of my waste will be made into a new product or packaging, I don't expect everyone to feel fulfilled when they drop their recycling at the curb. Yet the value of recycling becomes obvious regardless of politics.
Because accountability is a key part of a fiscal conservative’s philosophy, I propose extreme action against the non-recycler. For those who have the resources to recycle and choose not to, let’s forego the idea of taxing or fining these individuals. Rather, let us take accountability to the next level and affix a big red triangle to the houses of those non-recyclers. Fines and penalties aren't nearly as effective as an old-fashioned public shaming.
Neighbors should affix triangles to one another's houses when the bottles and cans don't appear on the curb. When you realize that on average we each produce 4.4 pounds of solid waste each day (almost a ton of trash per person per year), no one is exempt from recycling.
Communities could have bands of triangle enforcers, akin to the neighborhood watch. Rather than fight crime, the recycling enforcers will fight the disinterested and the disengaged.
While those who choose not to recycle may not care that plastic bags and other plastic garbage thrown into the ocean kill as many as 1,000,000 sea creatures every year, they should care about the facts as a fiscally responsible citizen. Each ton (2,000 pounds) of recycled paper can save 17 trees, 380 gallons of oil, three cubic yards of landfill space, 4,000 kilowatts of energy, and 7,000 gallons of water. This represents a 64% energy savings, a 58% water savings, and 60 pounds less of air pollution.
So while you may not care about global warming or environmental conservation, I think we all can agree that every citizen should care about their fiscal responsibility to themselves, their community and their economy. In good times and in bad, everyone is responsible to save what they can, be it money, resources or energy, or they receive the dreaded red triangle.
But here is the OPED I wrote for class on recycling. Enjoy!
Calling all Fiscal Conservatives: Time to Start Recycling
Do you believe in fiscal responsibility? Does your conservatism extend beyond “do more with less” and include a philosophy to “maximize resources?” If this is the case, I implore you to recycle.
Recycling isn't just for environmentalists. Anyone who cares about their fiscal duty to their family, community and economy needs to board the recycling bandwagon. Take these facts: Recycling one aluminum can saves enough energy to run a TV for three hours -- or the equivalent of a half a gallon of gasoline. The energy saved from recycling one glass bottle can run a 100-watt light bulb for four hours and it causes 20% less air pollution and 50% less water pollution than when a new bottle is made from raw materials.
Almost all Twin City neighborhoods have curbside recycling as a city service. Week after week, your bottles, cans, newspapers, cardboard, plastics and mixed paper will disappear from the curb and begin life anew. On average, it costs $30 per ton to recycle trash, $50 to send it to the landfill, and $65 to $75 to incinerate it, so recycling isn’t only easy, it is cost-effective and fiscally responsible.
While I receive a personal sense of satisfaction knowing some of my waste will be made into a new product or packaging, I don't expect everyone to feel fulfilled when they drop their recycling at the curb. Yet the value of recycling becomes obvious regardless of politics.
Because accountability is a key part of a fiscal conservative’s philosophy, I propose extreme action against the non-recycler. For those who have the resources to recycle and choose not to, let’s forego the idea of taxing or fining these individuals. Rather, let us take accountability to the next level and affix a big red triangle to the houses of those non-recyclers. Fines and penalties aren't nearly as effective as an old-fashioned public shaming.
Neighbors should affix triangles to one another's houses when the bottles and cans don't appear on the curb. When you realize that on average we each produce 4.4 pounds of solid waste each day (almost a ton of trash per person per year), no one is exempt from recycling.
Communities could have bands of triangle enforcers, akin to the neighborhood watch. Rather than fight crime, the recycling enforcers will fight the disinterested and the disengaged.
While those who choose not to recycle may not care that plastic bags and other plastic garbage thrown into the ocean kill as many as 1,000,000 sea creatures every year, they should care about the facts as a fiscally responsible citizen. Each ton (2,000 pounds) of recycled paper can save 17 trees, 380 gallons of oil, three cubic yards of landfill space, 4,000 kilowatts of energy, and 7,000 gallons of water. This represents a 64% energy savings, a 58% water savings, and 60 pounds less of air pollution.
So while you may not care about global warming or environmental conservation, I think we all can agree that every citizen should care about their fiscal responsibility to themselves, their community and their economy. In good times and in bad, everyone is responsible to save what they can, be it money, resources or energy, or they receive the dreaded red triangle.
Friday, January 2, 2009
Farm Bill
I'm glad to see that the farm bill has provisions for organic farmers. According to Jean Caspers-Simmet's article on AgriNews, "The bill contains $22 million in mandatory funding for offsetting the costs of obtaining or maintaining organic certification. Farmers can be reimbursed for up to 75 percent of the cost not to exceed $750 per year." Caspers-Simmet spoke with Ellen Huntoon, US Senator Tom Harkin's staffer on the Senate Agricultural Committee who indicated that $78 million over 5 years is intended for production and marketing practices. I hope this can give the organic farmers some of what they need to take their message to their consumers.
Maps -- I LOVE maps
I just found this fantastic bunch of maps on the Organic Farming Research Foundation website. They have maps that show:
- The distribution of certified organic operations around the U.S.
- U.S. number of organic acres farmed per state, in thousands of acres.
- U.S. percent of farmed acres per state that are certified organic.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Better batteries?
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Regulation that isn't helping
I have always believed that government regulation can be helpful in driving forward change that otherwise would not happen. But I also think that when government becomes too prescriptive in their approach, it stunts innovation and causes unforeseen problems that often hurt the very groups they are trying to help. Case in point, the new regulations proposed by the USDA, which could effectively put most organic livestock family farmers out of business. Let's just hope that this doesn't pass as is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
